Score one for the Constitution

[Amazon 7]

Quote

There's a lot of pompous self-righteousness on this thread. Most of it seems to be supported by piles of shit. Thanks for the laughs.

Then please do not do it

[billvon 3,006]

>I am and always have been for responsibility.

Cool, then we agree. Cut spending FIRST, THEN reduce taxes.

>But I guess we all will have to defer to you as to how much we all should
>pay.

Nope, just defer to your math teacher, or any CPA. Balance the books. That's how much you should pay. Anyone who can add up two columns of numbers can come up with the number.

>I know we humans are not a part of nature so we should not touch
>anything.

?? What are you talking about?

>One thing is for sure, without the alarmists environmental scare tactics we
>would be better off energy wise. Oh, and keep the polution crap , the US is
>the cleanest country on the planet and getting cleaner every day.

Yep. And why? Because all those "alarmist environmental scare tactics" worked. Those lying liberal fearmongers claimed that LA was getting unhealthy with all the smog, and tried to destroy the US economy by requiring catalytic converters (with PLATINUM in them!) and computers in every car. Surely they are trying to destroy america by making cars too expensive to own! They're just as bad as the climate change fearmongers who want to destroy america!

Yet 30 years later LA is between 50 and 90% cleaner, depending on pollutant. And there are way more cars there than there was in 1970.

Clean air act? Same thing. It worked. It has its problems, but it's saved hundreds of thousands of lives and resulted in significantly cleaner air in the US. It was pushed, of course, by those very same environmental fearmongers you so dislike.

So your pride in how we are cleaning up the planet? Give the credit where it belongs - to the very people you are constantly attacking for their alarmism.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I am and always have been for responsibility.

Cool, then we agree. Cut spending FIRST, THEN reduce taxes.Nope, spending must always be cut. Increasing (or not decreasing taxes) will reduce revenues. But I know you choose to argue that point

>But I guess we all will have to defer to you as to how much we all should
>pay.

Nope, just defer to your math teacher, or any CPA. Balance the books. That's how much you should pay. Anyone who can add up two columns of numbers can come up with the number.I perfer economists who show that reducing taxes increases gov revenue. Everytime it has been tryed it has worked. But, I know when revenue re-distribbution is the goal you need to argue the point

>I know we humans are not a part of nature so we should not touch
>anything.

?? What are you talking about?

>One thing is for sure, without the alarmists environmental scare tactics we
>would be better off energy wise. Oh, and keep the polution crap , the US is
>the cleanest country on the planet and getting cleaner every day.

Yep. And why? Because all those "alarmist environmental scare tactics" worked. Those lying liberal fearmongers claimed that LA was getting unhealthy with all the smog, and tried to destroy the US economy by requiring catalytic converters (with PLATINUM in them!) and computers in every car. Surely they are trying to destroy america by making cars too expensive to own! They're just as bad as the climate change fearmongers who want to destroy america!

Yet 30 years later LA is between 50 and 90% cleaner, depending on pollutant. And there are way more cars there than there was in 1970.

Clean air act? Same thing. It worked. It has its problems, but it's saved hundreds of thousands of lives and resulted in significantly cleaner air in the US. It was pushed, of course, by those very same environmental fearmongers you so dislike.

So your pride in how we are cleaning up the planet? Give the credit where it belongs - to the very people you are constantly attacking for their alarmism.

You are right here, it worked to increase prices and stiffel growth. Congratulations. If the alarmists had been ignored (as they should have been) we would have much lower electrical rates today.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,006]

>Nope, spending must always be cut. Increasing (or not decreasing
>taxes) will reduce revenues.

Do you think that paying off your credit card bill will increase your debt? If you avoid paying it, do you think it will eventually go away?

>I perfer economists who show that reducing taxes increases gov revenue.

Yep, and I bet you prefer salesmen who say that that car is almost free, and in tip top shape. But often it's better to go with reality - and in reality, unless you pay what you owe, your are not paying off your debt.

The country is full of people who subscribe to your philosophy. "Get my favorite program approved - it's not that much, really, and will create jobs - and cut my taxes! Someone else will pay for it." That spend-without-responsibility attitude has gotten us to where we are today.

>You are right here, it worked to increase prices and stiffel growth.
> Congratulations.

You could not be more wrong.

Adjusted power prices in 1999 dollars:

1960: 8.5 cents/kwhr
1999: 6.8 cents/kwhr

Total car sales per year in the US:

1970: 8,987,000
2000: 12,087,000

>If the alarmists had been ignored (as they should have been) we would have . . . .

. . . . Donora, PA happening on a nationwide scale. Instead we have cleaner air, cheaper power and more people buying cars. I know that sticks in the craw of conservatives everywhere, but the EPA has done its job. There's more to do, to be sure. But we're off to a good start. You yourself have admitted that "the US is the cleanest country on the planet and getting cleaner every day." And while it's not the cleanest country on the planet by far, it's not bad, and it is getting better - thanks to the alarmists you feel you have to hate.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Nope, spending must always be cut. Increasing (or not decreasing
>taxes) will reduce revenues.

Do you think that paying off your credit card bill will increase your debt? If you avoid paying it, do you think it will eventually go away?Why do you do this shit. The proof is in the history and we are talking national economics not credit card payments.

>I perfer economists who show that reducing taxes increases gov revenue.

Yep, and I bet you prefer salesmen who say that that car is almost free, and in tip top shape. But often it's better to go with reality - and in reality, unless you pay what you owe, your are not paying off your debt.another out of context post. You missed but nice try

The country is full of people who subscribe to your philosophy. "Get my favorite program approved - it's not that much, really, and will create jobs - and cut my taxes! Someone else will pay for it." That spend-without-responsibility attitude has gotten us to where we are today.I want responcibility, you want redistrubution of money. money from hard working poeple to the welfare programs.

>You are right here, it worked to increase prices and stiffel growth.
> Congratulations.

You could not be more wrong.

Adjusted power prices in 1999 dollars:

1960: 8.5 cents/kwhr
1999: 6.8 cents/kwhr

Total car sales per year in the US:

1970: 8,987,000
2000: 12,087,000and it would be lower but you don't want to go there now do you?

>If the alarmists had been ignored (as they should have been) we would have . . . .

. . . . Donora, PA happening on a nationwide scale. Instead we have cleaner air, cheaper power and more people buying cars. I know that sticks in the craw of conservatives everywhere, but the EPA has done its job. There's more to do, to be sure. But we're off to a good start. You yourself have admitted that "the US is the cleanest country on the planet and getting cleaner every day." And while it's not the cleanest country on the planet by far, it's not bad, and it is getting better - thanks to the alarmists you feel you have to hate.

I know it could be better and as for the cleaner part, thanks for making my point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,006]

>Why do you do this shit.

Someone has to apply a bit of common sense to the fantasy economics thing. "The less we pay the smaller the deficit gets! It's magic!"

>I want responcibility . . . .

Then pay for what you (as in your government) spends. Simple.

>you want redistrubution of money. money from hard working poeple to
>the welfare programs.

Nope, sorry, try again. I don't want anyone's wealth (including mine or yours) redistributed to anyone. I just want to make sure you pay your bills. Want to pay less bills? Spend less money.

>>1970: 8,987,000
>>2000: 12,087,000
>and it would be lower but you don't want to go there now do you?

Sure, let's go there! You claim that number could be lower if we didn't have emissions requirements. How would removing emissions limitations DECREASE the number of cars sold?

You're not even making any sense within your own paradigm.

>I know it could be better . . .

And it will get better, even though you hate the guts of the people who will make it happen - and even if they have to roll over you to get it done.

>and as for the cleaner part, thanks for making my point.

Yep. We are cleaner today. Again, thanks to the people you hate.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

fantasy economics

Tax cut = record tax revenues... how is that fantasy? It's happening NOW.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

fantasy economics

Tax cut = record tax revenues... how is that fantasy? It's happening NOW.

Please show the data, CORRECTED for inflation and population growth.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

fantasy economics

Tax cut = record tax revenues... how is that fantasy? It's happening NOW.

Please show the data, CORRECTED for inflation and population growth.

Google is your friend. I merely pass on what was reported - feel free to play with the numbers any way you wish (and I'm sure you will) to try and make it say otherwise.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Why do you do this shit.

Someone has to apply a bit of common sense to the fantasy economics thing. well it aint you "The less we pay the smaller the deficit gets! It's magic!"

>I want responcibility . . . .

Then pay for what you (as in your government) spends. Simple. I agree But raising taxes will only cause less venenue. again, cutting taxes has increased revenues everytime it has been done

>you want redistrubution of money. money from hard working poeple to
>the welfare programs.

Nope, sorry, try again. I don't want anyone's wealth (including mine or yours) redistributed to anyone. I just want to make sure you pay your bills. Want to pay less bills? Spend less money.My money goes to welfare programs where more money is spent in other states. i suppose you think that is paying your own way

>>1970: 8,987,000
>>2000: 12,087,000
>and it would be lower but you don't want to go there now do you?

Sure, let's go there! You claim that number could be lower if we didn't have emissions requirements. How would removing emissions limitations DECREASE the number of cars sold? Nope, missed it. If the alarmists along with the media had not been such big liars we would have built a few more nuc electric plants and maybe a refinery or two. But the bs thrown out back then made sure that did not happen. Had those plants been on line today it is my belife the very prices you list would have been lower
You're not even making any sense within your own paradigm.

>I know it could be better . . .

And it will get better, even though you hate the guts of the people who will make it happen - and even if they have to roll over you to get it done.I don't hate anybody and I want clean air and water just as you do however, stopping growth and destroying an economy for false reasons is just as bad as polution

>and as for the cleaner part, thanks for making my point.

Yep. We are cleaner today. Again, thanks to the people you hate.

One more time the self proclaimed know it all attitude knows how someone who has a differing veiw point feels. Another shining example of the liberal attitude

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

fantasy economics

Tax cut = record tax revenues... how is that fantasy? It's happening NOW.

Please show the data, CORRECTED for inflation and population growth.

Google is your friend. I merely pass on what was reported - feel free to play with the numbers any way you wish (and I'm sure you will) to try and make it say otherwise.

Just asking that you justify your claim. Claiming "Record revenues" is meaningless unless population growth and inflation are accounted for.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Just asking that you justify your claim. Claiming "Record revenues" is meaningless unless population growth and inflation are accounted for.

It certainly would seem more plausible if it didn't always seem to accompany large spikes in the deficit.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Just asking that you justify your claim. Claiming "Record revenues" is meaningless unless population growth and inflation are accounted for.

It certainly would seem more plausible if it didn't always seem to accompany large spikes in the deficit.

Always?

Reported last week:

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal deficit is running sharply lower through the first eight months of this budget year as growth in revenues continues to outpace the growth in spending.
The Treasury Department said that the deficit through May totaled $148.5 billion, down 34.6 percent from the same period a year ago.

[kelpdiver 2]

Wow - that's quite a fantasy world you got going - proud of a deficit that is only 150B for the first 8 months of the year. (yet includes April, when receipts spike) I myself would wait till the year end accounting to be remotely pleased that we only ran a deficit of nearly $1000 per living American.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

The Treasury Department said that the deficit through May totaled $148.5 billion, down 34.6 percent from the same period a year ago.

What part of "always" don't you understand?

Revenues up..... deficit down.

It's basic stuff.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Wow - that's quite a fantasy world you got going - proud of a deficit that is only 150B for the first 8 months of the year. (yet includes April, when receipts spike)

Funny how you inferred all that from my post.

Quote

I myself would wait till the year end accounting to be remotely pleased that we only ran a deficit of nearly $1000 per living American.

From another story last week:

Quote

For the 2007 budget year, which ends on Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a federal deficit of $177 billion. That would be down 28.7% from last year's imbalance of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest deficit in four years.

How much does that work out per living American?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

From another UNCITED story last week:

Quote

For the 2007 budget year, which ends on Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a federal deficit of $177 billion. That would be down 28.7% from last year's imbalance of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest deficit in four years.

How much does that work out per living American?

Too much. $600. You want to mail a check? Or pretend that the tax cut saved you that money?

It also ignores the surplus that Social Security ran this year, to the tune of a couple hundred billion. That, and the 2T run up over the past years of the 'tax cut' will be paid back, with interest.

I hope your own finances aren't as fucked up as the government's.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Wow - that's quite a fantasy world you got going - proud of a deficit that is only 150B for the first 8 months of the year. (yet includes April, when receipts spike)

Funny how you inferred all that from my post.

Quote

I myself would wait till the year end accounting to be remotely pleased that we only ran a deficit of nearly $1000 per living American.

From another story last week:

Quote

For the 2007 budget year, which ends on Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a federal deficit of $177 billion. That would be down 28.7% from last year's imbalance of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest deficit in four years.

How much does that work out per living American?

I think it's about $5.62 each, whether they're working or not. But don't sweat the principal. We're only paying less than the minimum on that interest only loan and we know how good those agreements are for the economy

[NCclimber 0]

You do seem intent on diverting attention away from your nonsensical posts. LOL

You keep lobbing them my way.

BTW The SS surplus gets gobbled up every year and the total federal debt increased every year of Clinton's presidency. We didn't actually realize a surplus.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

From another story last week:

Quote

For the 2007 budget year, which ends on Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a federal deficit of $177 billion. That would be down 28.7% from last year's imbalance of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest deficit in four years.

How much does that work out per living American?

I think it's about $5.62 each,

Give or take $560.00 LOL

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You do seem intent on diverting attention away from your nonsensical posts. LOL

You keep lobbing them my way.

BTW The SS surplus gets gobbled up every year and the total federal debt increased every year of Clinton's presidency. We didn't actually realize a surplus.

Yes that's true. But what does that say for your argument? At least Clinton could claim a false surplus. And this is despite the fact that SS taxes has sharply increased in the past few years as the max rocketed from under 60k to into the 90s now?

Nonsensical is pretending that the tax cuts in 2001 and 2002 didn't result in trillions in debt. The same pattern was seen in the 80s as well. The best the White House can do is talk about how low the deficit is relative to the GNP.

Clinton raised taxes and also had record revenues, along with a paper surplus. Learn what inflation means.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

You do seem intent on diverting attention away from your nonsensical posts. LOL

You keep lobbing them my way.

BTW The SS surplus gets gobbled up every year and the total federal debt increased every year of Clinton's presidency. We didn't actually realize a surplus.

Yes that's true. But what does that say for your argument?

Which arguement is that?

That record revenues are not always accompanied by large spikes in the deficit?

Or how about the one that the current projected deficit is less than $1000.00 per American?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Yes that's true. But what does that say for your argument? At least Clinton could claim a false surplus. And this is despite the fact that SS taxes has sharply increased in the past few years as the max rocketed from under 60k to into the 90s now?

SS base wages have risen steadily EVERY YEAR since 1971 - what's your point?

Quote

Nonsensical is pretending that the tax cuts in 2001 and 2002 didn't result in trillions in debt. The same pattern was seen in the 80s as well. The best the White House can do is talk about how low the deficit is relative to the GNP.

Equally nonsensical is trying to say that the state of the economy is worse since the tax cuts. Inflation is down, unemployment is down, and tax receipts are at record levels - AFTER a tax cut.

Quote

Clinton raised taxes and also had record revenues, along with a paper surplus. Learn what inflation means.

Year Inflation Rate
1993 2.99
1994 2.56
1995 2.83
1996 2.95
1997 2.29
1998 1.56
1999 2.21
2000 3.36 AVG 2.54
____________________
2001 2.85
2002 1.58
2003 2.28
2004 2.66
2005 3.39
2006 3.23 AVG 2.63

Looks like it's pretty comparable...especially given events since '01.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Equally nonsensical is trying to say that the state of the economy is worse since the tax cuts. Inflation is down, unemployment is down, and tax receipts are at record levels - AFTER a tax cut.

I'm not sure how to ask politely - are you two deliberately misunderstanding English? Or simple economics?

We're talking about the deficit, not the state of the economy. The reality is that Reagan discovered you can have a decent economy if you spend a shitload of money you don't have. Bush and Bush have continued this pattern. It works in the short term, though it kills the value of the dollar and requires the next guy to clean up the mess.

It's retarded to look at the deficit for this last year as proof that cutting taxes increases the tax base. It ignores the blantantly obvious counterevidence of the 5 prior years.

I didn't ask you to compare inflation of the past two administrations. I asked you to comprehend what it means. Let's say ten years ago the Feds collected 1T in taxes. This year they collected a record 1.28T in taxes. But inflation was 2.5%. End result is you collected the same amount of money.

This is why Kallend asked you to control for inflation. I mentioned population growth too because if you gain 10% in population, you can expect an increase in the tax base as well.

Doing absolutely nothing, every two term president should set a new revenues record for these factors alone. So it's not really a shining accomplishment. It's like a CEO touting how the stock price for his company went up 30% over the past 5 years (while the overall market went up 60%)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The Treasury announced this week that it will repay $42 billion in federal debt in the third April-to-June quarter, instead of borrowing $12 billion.

Yup, those tax cuts are HORRIBLE for the deficit, aren't they? Leaving people and businesses more of THEIR money to spend and stimulate the economy works yet again.

Tax receipts 25% higher than the same period in 2006...

18% higher than the previous record in April 2001... that'd be for tax year 2000... hmmmm.

The Dem's can't take credit for it...and it chaps their asses...badly.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706